How is apostolic tradition connected to the Gospel?

Our faith in the Messiah, the Savior, is at the core of our Holy Tradition. More than once, St. Paul the apostle told his congregation that he has delivered to them the tradition of the

194 F. F. Bruce, Tradition: Old and New (Michigan: Zondervan, 1972): p. 33.

195 J. P. Mackey, Tradition and Change in the Church (M. H. Gill & Son, 1968): p. 20.

“gospel of salvation,” the “word of hearing” or the “God’s salvific work,” which he had received from the Church. He says, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received and wherein you stand … For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1–4). “When you received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of men but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectively works also in you who believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). Truly, the apostles received this gospel of the Church, not written on paper but through word of mouth, that they may deliver it to the Church by oral tradition, as well as written.

On this note, Cyril Richardson says, “Hence Christian preaching was founded on the Old Testament and on the living tradition of Jesus, passed from mouth to mouth. This feeling for personal witness was very strong in the Early Church. Papias, for instance, records his disdain for books and his preference for ‘the living and abiding voice’.”¹⁹⁶

Many Western scholars are coming to appreciate this truth: oral tradition does not stand side by side with the written works as separate and distinct things; rather, they are one thing. What the Bible declares, the Church has received by oral tradition.

F. F. Bruce, the professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester notes: “Whereas western Christians tend to set ‘scripture’ and ‘tradition’ over against each other, as though tradition were exclusively oral and not written, there is no reason why tradition should not take written form. If it is apostolic tradition, in due course it takes written form and becomes apostolic scripture. Whether Paul’s teaching was given orally or in writing, it equally carried apostolic authority; hence he can encourage the Thessalonian Christians to ‘stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter’ (2 Thess. 2:15).”[197 ]

In The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible we find, “The term ( tradition ), however, came to be used in a good sense of the apostolic teaching handed down in the Church either by the oral word or by letter.”¹⁹⁸

J. N. D. Kelly says, “by tradition the fathers usually mean doctrine which the Lord or His apostles committed to the Church, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents … The ancient meaning of the term is well illustrated by Athanasius’ reference¹⁹⁹ to ‘the actual original tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord bestowed, the apostles proclaimed and the fathers safeguarded.’”²⁰⁰

196 Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers (Touchstone, 1995): p. 21.

197 F. F. Bruce, Tradition: Old and New (Michigan: Zondervan, 1972): p. 37.

198 Henry Gehman, The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976): p. 957.

199 St. Athanasius of Alexandria, T he Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion , trans. C .R. B. Shapland (Epworth Press, 1951), 1.28: pp. 133–136.

200 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines , 4th ed. (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968): pp. 30, 31.

Indeed, the Church received the “word of God” before it was written on paper. She enjoyed its good news and understood the deepest meaning of the word of God by the Holy Spirit through oral tradition, received not only by words but also as a way of life. She received this life more than twenty years before the New Testament began to be written. And when the evangelists and apostles did write the New Testament by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church accepted it, venerated it, and understood it as the very life she had already been living. Thus, the Gospel is not a stranger to tradition, but its first component, for they both declare the “One Truth” and explain the nature of the Church.

Perhaps one may ask whether oral tradition was annulled by the appearance of the books of the New Testament. We point to the apostles themselves who, in their letters to the early Christian communities, often reminded the believers of oral tradition from which they may gain an understanding of Christian truth. “Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full” (2 John 12). “I had many things to write, but I do not wish to write to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we shall speak face to face” (3 John 13–14). “And the rest I will set in order when I come” (1 Cor. 11:34). “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5).

In many situations, the apostle Paul commands his disciples to preserve the tradition, deliver it to others, and keep the traditions they were taught ― whether by word of mouth or by his epistles ― and to withdraw themselves “from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us“ (2 Thess. 3:6). He also warns us to beware of every tradition of men which is inconsistent with the faith, “according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). Moreover, in the early Church, converts to Christianity accepted the faith in many countries that had no versions of the Bible in their own languages and thus had no access to the truth except through oral tradition.²⁰¹

St. Irenaeus in the second century is the first to discuss the matter of tradition. He poses these questions: suppose we had no holy scripture, what would have happened? To whom should we turn? “Should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”²⁰²

201 P. E. Hallett, A Catholic Dictionary . 15th ed. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951): p. 782.

202 St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 3.4.1 (ANF 1:417); J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen 1920): pp. 55–56.